4/25 Jigsaw Activity

Q. Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.

A. This packet is about the Patriot Act and whether it has increased censorship in the United States or it has not. I think a good debate resolution would be, The Patriot Act increased censorship in the United States.

Q. Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another?

A. The Patriot Act is a law that allows the government to enforce law powers. This includes allowing agents to follow a suspect through wiretaps and follow the suspect into a library or a bookstore. The government is also able to track down email and internet usage from anyone. Not only this, but the Patriot Act also gives the government the power to limit what a person reads or purshases.

This is a big impact on our constitutional rights because it violates the First Amendment, the right to expression free from government interference. The Patriot Act limits our reading, and that already is an issue. I think that limiting the amount of reading is completely unconstitutional. We have the right to read what we want, and write what we want. Pretty much anything that allows us to express ourselves. There is nothing that can't allow us to do that.

I think this is an important topic because I believe the Patriot Act increases censorship in the United States. It gives the government priveledges to track down a suspect through following them. But those rights are completely unnecessary because that is why we have FBI agents and local cops, they are the ones that help prevent crimes. The Patriot Act is a big invasion of privacy and it's pretty much as we call, "stalking." How would you like it if everytime you were to walk into a library or a bookstore, there were FBI agents there, practically waiting for you to be questioned if you were part of some crime or some act of terrorism? Wouldn't you feel like you were being accused of a crime? I sure would not want that. The library is a place for you to read, and do research and whatnot, not a police station.

In the passage, they say "it is possible for them to investigate a person who is not suspected of criminal activity, but who may have some connection to a person. Worse... there is a gag provision barring bookstores or libraries from telling anyone-- including the suspect about the investigation. Violators of the gag order can go to jail." What I believe this means is that it the govenment may also track down ANYONE they please. From my perspective, I think there might be times where they may take advantage of this right and "stalk" someone that may not have done anything wrong.

This also limits many powers for me as an individial because I would never feel safe when I'm on the computer. If I were to send an email to a friend or a family member, I think the government could easily have access to that. The Patriot Act would completely cover for them.

Q. Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side.

A. Con : It is a fact that the violent crime rate has plunged down to it's lowest point in 30 years. This is not due to the Patriot Act, but the FBI and the local cops that have worked hard to prevent crimes.

Pro : The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor a suspect or even a terrorist through wiretaps.

4/24 The Press in Times of Crisis

Q. Indicate wheter your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
A. I decided to read the chapter that was against the resolution. The three main points that I chose to support the Con side of the argument. One, it is unconstitutional to censor the media's opinions. Two, there was the issue about a man named Maher Hawash who was arrested and his home was also raided. He could not explain why exactly he was being held. This related to our topic, because later the article discusses how the press first heard about this story, such as The New York Times and the story was ran in their newspapers. This is a great example to support the Con argument because this was an issue that was hidden under secracy. Very few people were not aware that this had happened. And finally, the issue about a man, Jose Padilla who was arrested at an airport in Chicago who was a "known terrorist" and was planning to explode a radioactive bomb. I don't really know this is related to our topic, but this was a great issue that appreared in the text that I think could be used later on.
Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. My personal opinion on the issue is that I am definitely against censoring the media. The media should have a right to broadcast the news to us. After all,it is their job to deliver the news to us. Especially during a major event such as a war, or an attack. We want to be kept informed what's going on in our society, and what possible challenges we may face later on. But I also believe there should be a limitation as to the content that is expressed by the media. Sometimes they can take advantage of their air time to broadcast their own personal opinions. Sometimes that may be a good thing because it can change your own personal opinions about a particular subject, but it can be a bad thing as well because if they include anything from violence, to language in their opinions and it may not be appropriate for the audience. But in my overall opinion, even if there may be some negative sides to the media, I believe that the media is something that we cannot live our lives without.

4/23 Viewpoints

Q. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
A. America is crumbling because people are becoming very opinionated and they're not giving any thought as to what can be affected from what they say. They also don't know where to stop, and they don't know the limit as to the law. Not only this, but the youth have been affected as well. There are many things that are open to young children that they should not even be taught yet. Young children are learning things that is not yet concerned with them, only as to the "adult world."

Q. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" arguement.

A. Freedom of Speech is our right to have a say in what we believe in. But without it, we would not be able to express our thoughts on a particilar subject that we feel strongly about. But I also believe that we should follow the law as well because without it, we wouldn't have order in our country. People would not be able to know what is right or what is wrong. People would not know the limit.

Q. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
A. I think everyone should have the right to Freedom of Speech, but we sometimes tend to take advantage of it, and we take matters too far. They push things too far that before they know it, they're doing something wrong, and they have to face a consequence. What I think should be the solution to this is there should be an extension to the limit to what we want to say. I think it's wrong for people to get in trouble over a small issue that was probably not made intentionally. But I think the right thing to do is to create a consequence if you go pass that limit. So in my opinion, we need refinement in our country.

4/19 Don Imus Controversy

Q. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
A. NAACP believes he should be silenced because it not only looks bad on the network, but it really created a big controversy about racism and sexism.

Q. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
A. Frank Rich believes he should not be silenced because he wouldn't actually say anything that would be offensive towards someone, mainly only to get a few laughs. It's not really a bid deal because he makes fun of everyone. Frank Rich also believes that he has freedom of speech, and he can say his own personal opinions.

4/18 Plato Reading & Blog

Q. Why should plays, and acting in them, be regulated? What is potentially beneficial or harmful from acting in a play?

A. I really don't think plays and acting in them should be regulated at all. People should be able to express themselves in a way that they want. If acting is their hobby, then they should pursue their goal. But as to Plato's quote, "And it will also apply to representation; a man cannot play many parts as well as he can one (pg. 89),"

this made me question. I think plays should be regulated because a person cannot control another person because that is not what was meant for him. That person can only control their own life. When a person acts in a play, he cannot BE that person. He can only do his best to try to portray that character.

I think Plato wants to regulate plays because if children were to watch plays that could involve violence or drugs, or anything not sitable for children, they could become influenced. Plato wants to adjust the play standards to something a little more appropriate. What's harmful in acting in a play is that a person can get so into that character, that they can do something harmful in reality. The only thing beneficial in acting in a play is that person's own enjoyment.